We used to be rightly proud that here in the UK the judiciary  was independent of the executive.

This ruling is another erosion of that independence.

Many lawyers have been highly critical of this ruling as it seems motivated more by politics than law. The justices say that the home secretary’s decision should be respected because if the electorate disagree with them they can be removed.

But: Shamima Begum ruling sets dangerous precedent, say legal experts

Quote

The supreme court justices argue that the right to a fair hearing does not trump all other considerations, such as the safety of the public.

But this only stands if the decision was based solely on national security concerns, and not politics.

So if, as the justices suggest, it is ultimately for the electorate to judge these decisions, then voters might ask: do they trust the home secretary to impartially balance human rights considerations with national security concerns and not let politics interfere?

Shamima Begum loses case in Supreme Court

Quote

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment reads as a deliberately very narrow one. This is hardly surprising in the current highly politicised circumstances, but it is disappointing for public lawyers and perhaps public law. General principles are where possible eschewed and the case is not sent back to be re-heard on any of the arguable points.

One also has to ask, as lawyers in both articles and many others have done, why Begum has been treated differently to the many others whom the security services have returned to the UK from Syria?

1 minute ago, kingdong said:

11 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

What support for her acts has been shown here; either by word or deed?

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Putting aside your repeated sensitivities, you clearly do not understating that her case remains ‘current’ while ever there remains a path to appeal.

 

 

 

The highest court in the land has made its decision if you havent noticed.

Yes, I noticed. That's why i commented on it!

But commenting that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent is not expressing support for Begum's actions, nor those of another terrorist or terrorist supporter.

3 minutes ago, kingdong said:

also i,m not a word nazi but can,t make any sense of your post, "you clearly.do not understating that her case" ?

My post? No, not my post even though you included that post in your quote of mine!

Understating is a real word. I suggest that you first look up it's meaning and then if still confused direct your enquiry to the person who used it, not I.

Just now, kingdong said:

No one has to, their actions and support for a traitor to her country do that.

What support for her acts has been shown here; either by word or deed?

2 minutes ago, kingdong said:

And i watched her interview in syria some time ago,no remorse about what she,d done,bragging about how observing a dustbin full of human heads had made her a "stronger person" and you wish to see her unleashed into society? Hang your head in shame.

Who here has said that they "wish to see her unleashed into society?"

I hold no brief for any terrorist; right wing or left wing, Islamist or Islamaphobic, Irish nationalist or Ulster Loyalist etc. 

However, the UK government can now effectively remove a person's British citizenship and prevent them from appealing against that removal in a British court. This is a dangerous precedent. 

I wonder how long before future government's, right or left, will use it against their political opponents.

Couldn't happen here? I hope not; but this ruling makes it that much easier.

People like ISIS want to destroy our democracy and the rights we hold dear. In my opinion, this ruling has only helped bring that despicable aim closer to reality.

10 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

From the "Bristol Post": "Whenever the question was asked in the past two decades in opinion polls, letters pages and radio phone-ins, it seemed that the majority of people in Bristol said they wanted the Colston Statue to stay."

The majority of people who were asked in the opinion polls, wrote to the letters pages or called the radio phone ins.

Not the majority of people in Bristol.

The only way to come close to determining that is to hold a Bristol wide referendum. 

1 hour ago, Tofer said:

<snip>

We don't want membership of your club. We want fair trade, and we're not getting that as noted above.

Take your complaint to Lord Frost who negotiated the trade agreement and Boris Johnson who signed it!

But think how much worse things would be with the option preferred by many Brexiteers; WTO rules!

As said to you many, many times; you voted to leave the EU; time to stop whingeing because you got what you voted for!

6 hours ago, Tofer said:

More than 1,000 EU firms plan first UK office after Brexit.

Extract from your own quoted source, clearly contradicts your statement therein, first I presume can be considered new...

 

That article and the BBC news report you later quote is an exact replica of the content of the media I quoted.

 

But, oh no it can't be true because it came from a right wing media group... ???? ????

 

Like I said; your source almost got it right.

I don't know about you, but when I was taught maths I learned that 1000 is less than 1500!

6 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

You're still missing the point, our goods and services complied with EU rules on the 31st Dec. but were all of a sudden unacceptable one second later.

 

As for new rules regarding the free flow of goods - that's a completely different context. That's related to border controls and checks requiring proper documentation. The punishment and business grabbing tactics, are exactly that - tactics and punishment.

Until the 31st December our goods and services did not have to comply with the EU's rules on imports from non members because. although we had left, we were still in the transition period and treated as a member.

After that we were no longer a member and so treated as all other non members.

Stop whinging because leaving the EU means we're not treated as members anymore. It's what you voted for!

6 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

I just did, with the financial services storey, or did you not understand it?

To which I responded; did you not understand that response?

Here it is again

Of course some financial companies who wish to continue trading with the UK or on UK markets have had to move here since Brexit; but have the jobs created replaced those lost by companies going the other way since the referendum?

From February 2019: Which companies are leaving UK, downsizing or cutting jobs ahead of Brexit?

It's still happening; on the advice of HMG! Move to EU to avoid Brexit costs, firms told 

Even Brexit supporters are moving to the EU: Brexit-backing Ineos boss confirms new cars will be built in France instead of Wales

Are the city jobs created replacing the manufacturing and other industry jobs lost? Doesn't seem so.

Do you really think a net increase in unemployment is a benefit?

7 hours ago, Tofer said:

There you go again, twisting the thread to try to perpetuate an irrelevant argument. If you want to get your dig in, at least make it feasible....

 

If you check back, you will see my response to a post highlighting the lazy benefits claimants who refuse to work in the fields picking fruit and veg. It did not refer to you specifically, if you are on sickness benefit it's a totally different scenario.

There you go again; hoping everyone has forgotten what you posted and lack the nous to go back and look!

My quote was from this post of yours in which, after your comments on the unemployed, you said "But correct me if I'm wrong, are all remainers sat on their backsides chewing the cud at mine and the other tax payers expense?"

You're wrong, and so I did as you asked and corrected you!

I see that my comment on expat Brexiteers touched a nerve! Seems that your happy to dish it out, but hate taking it!

7 hours ago, Tofer said:

21 hours ago, 7by7 said:

I'm currently receiving SSP, paid for out of my NICs over my 40 years working life

 

- this statement is incorrect! Benefits are paid out of tax revenues, not NI contributions.

Technically you are correct; my and every other workers NICs pay the state pensions of those currently retired.

However, certain benefits, such as SSP and JSA, are dependent on one having paid the relevant NICs. 

15 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

So you think opting out of the single currency along with eight other member states is the same as opting out of a vaccine program during a pandemic that all the other member states agreed to is the same sort of thing? I don't. 

As we've now left the EU, only one member state has permanently opted out of the Euro; Denmark.

The others are obliged to join at some time in the future "when the economic conditions are right." Though I grant you this means they can postpone joining indefinitely.

18 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

When will it sink in ????

 

Please stop repeating stuff about EU law allowing this and that. The question is not could we have gone our own way, the question is would we have gone our own way? 

Brexiteers here are repeating Hancock and Rees-Mogg's lie that we could not have gone our own way without Brexit.

Including you! For example " if the UK had never voted for Brexit and had still been a full EU member, we'd have been obliged to join the EU vaccine program whether it was in law or not."

18 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

And obviously we wouldn't have. 

It is not obvious at all.

Whilst still a member the UK opted out of

• the Schengen area,
• the economic and monetary union,
• the area of freedom, security and justice,
• the charter of fundamental rights and
• the social chapter (although Blair later reversed this one).

There is zero evidence to suggest that had Brexit never happened we would not have used the EU regulations to unilaterally approve the Pfizer vaccine.

19 hours ago, vogie said:

 

 

I stand corrected. 

19 hours ago, vinny41 said:

LONDON — The European Commission published the full text of the trade agreement in principle between the U.K. and EU on Saturday morning. 

The U.K. government published the text on its website shortly after. Both the UK and the Commission also published additional texts covering economic, security and nuclear cooperation. One includes joint declarations in areas such as financial services.

https://www.politico.eu/article/commission-publishes-full-text-of-uk-eu-brexit-trade-agreement/

 

So that would have been Saturday 26th December 2020

Its quite normal in major negotiations that the only parties that have details of the negotiation are the negotiation team and the people that they report back to

You missed the second paragraph from your source: "The text is dated December 25. A version obtained by POLITICO on Friday was dated December 24."

Did you follow the link to the UK government's website? If you did, did you read it?

From that link "Published 24 December 2020."

OK, that's the Summary Explainer and the full text was not added until the 26th; but the explainer published on the 24th contains enough for Ms Prentiss to have known the basics. 

Most damning off all, she actually said to the Lords committee that the agreement came when she was too busy on organising her local Nativity trail on Christmas Eve, See from 1:18 in the video of that conversation.

Even the Tory supporting Spectator says

Quote

Mr S is glad to hear that Prentis takes her festive responsibilities seriously. But one imagines that fishermen across the country will have been rather less pleased by the minister’s lack of interest in their fate…

On 2/26/2021 at 7:54 AM, Stuart Fox said:

I work online for a major game company in USA so i am fine and able to work anywhere in the world. I have been fine for 5-6 years. Again roughly making 4000-5000usd per month. 

Employed or self employed?

Either way, you will need to satisfy Appendix FM Section 1.7 Appendix

If employed, see "Salaried and non-salaried employment; Category A: With current employer for 6 months or more – overseas sponsor returning to the UK."

If self employed see "Self-employment as a sole trader, as a partner or in a franchise – requirements."

Either way, for this initial application only your income can be used.

If you and your partner have combined cash savings of at least £65,000 you can use these to satisfy the requirement. Cash savings above £16,000 can be used to reduce the amount of employed income required, but not self employed income. See "Cash savings" in the appendix.

Whichever option you use, you will need to supply the evidence specified in the appendix.

On 2/26/2021 at 2:44 AM, Patong2021 said:

Consider relying on your partner's job.

If your partner is a qualified nurse, then there is supposed to be an accelerated path to residency if she enters one of the  specified NHS  nurse fields where there is a critical shortage. 15% of NHS nurses are foreign trained. There are approx. 90,000  unfilled care positions across all staff groups, with critical shortages in mental health, senior care  and community health.  If your partner is able to meet the  UK certification requirement they may subsidize  and/or cover the costs. Medical staff are are highly desired immigrants.

"If your partner is able to meet the  UK certification requirement." Not sure what you mean by this. Qualifications, or visa requirements?

For the visa she would first need a job offer from an approved UK employer with a sponsor licence. Obviously the NHS is such. To get this job offer her employer would, of course, have to recognise her qualifications.

See Health and Care Worker visa for full details.

On 2/26/2021 at 2:16 AM, brewsterbudgen said:

If the OP is British (Otherwise than by Descent) the baby will be British wherever it is born.  The UK doesn't have birthright citizenship.

 True; but if born outside the UK or a qualifying territory the child will be British by descent.

This means s/he will not be able to automatically pass their British citizenship onto their children unless those children are born in the UK or a qualifying territory.

6 minutes ago, vogie said:

Exactly, even Jeremy Corbyn said that the EU doesn't respect workers rights, and that is saying something.

Never been a fan of Corbyn; but when and where did he say that? 

In his response to the EU Withdrawal Agreement Bill he did say in Parliament

Quote

For all the promises over the past few weeks that they are the party to protect rights at work, at the very first opportunity they have removed the basic provisions they had said would be part of this bill.

That does not bode well for the separate Bill the prime minister is now saying he will bring forward on workers’ rights.

If he wants to assure people that their rights are safe in his hands he should commit to legislate to ensure workers rights in Britain will never fall behind EU standards in the future and support amendments to enshrine this commitment within this bill.